NOTING the Decision of Trial Chamber I of 10 July 1997 on the
Prosecutors Motions of 5 and 11 June 1997 for witness protection
(hereinafter "the Decision of 10 July 1997"),

NOTING the Decision of Trial Chamber I of 11 November 1997 on the
Prosecutor's Motion for video deposition and protective measures, (hereinafter "the
Decision of 11 November 1997"),

CONSIDERING that the Prosecutor requests that the Trial Chamber order
nine protective measures for three witnesses whom she intends to call to testify in the
near future; that, in so doing, the Prosecutor is acting on behalf of the Government of
the witnesses in question (hereinafter "the Government") and asserts that, in
view of the nature of the positions and duties of those witnesses, both at the time of the
facts and today, those measures are necessary to safeguard the national security of the
State;

CONSIDERING that the nine protective measures requested are the
following:

1. The said witnesses should testify in closed session (hereinafter
"measure 1").

2. The parties and representatives of the Government should have the
opportunity to make recommendations relative to the passages in the transcripts to be
redacted for security reasons (hereinafter "measure 2");

3. The witnesses should testify under a pseudonym (hereinafter
"measure 3");

4. The representatives of the Government should be permitted to be present
in the courtroom during the hearing of the witnesses (hereinafter "measure 4");

5. Certain sensitive information should not be disclosed either to the
media, to any third party or in any public proceeding (hereinafter "measure 5");

6. Certain specific excerpts of the prior witness statements should not be
disclosed to the media, to any third party, or in any public proceeding (hereinafter
"measure 6");

7. The testimony of protected witnesses should be used only in closed
session during the testimony of other witnesses at the trial (hereinafter "measure
7");

8. The disclosure of the testimony of protected witnesses outside the
courtroom or to a potential witness by a party should be the subject of an ex parte
application before the Trial Chamber and the Government should be authorised to appear
pursuant to such a request (hereinafter "measure 8");

9. Any proceedings held in respect of the application should be in closed
session (hereinafter "measure 9");

CONSIDERING that, in its Response, the Defence consents to the
adoption of measures 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, as described above; that the Trial Chamber
consequently notes that the disputed points concern only the granting of measures 1, 3,
and 8 as presented above;

CONSIDERING that, with respect to measure 1, the Prosecutor, basing
her Motion on the previous Trial Chamber Decisions of 10 July and 11 November 1997,
requests a closed session both for reasons of national security of the State in question
and because a "personal safety concern S...C is apparent in the need to protect
the identities and current postings of the witnesses"; that it is the position of
the Defence that such protection is unnecessarily stringent insofar as protection might be
ensured simply by moving into a closed session when the type of subjects discussed so
require;

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber deems that the exceptional nature
of the mission and nature of the duties of the witnesses concerned justify that strict
protection be accorded not only to certain categories of information deemed sensitive, but
also to the identity of those witnesses, in order to guarantee their personal safety; that
it is appropriate to note that only a closed session permits ensuring such protection;

CONSIDERING that, in respect of measure 3, the Prosecutor requests the
use of a pseudonym in order to conceal the identity of the witnesses should the redacted
transcript of their testimony be disclosed; that the Defence objects to such additional
protection which, given the possibility of holding a closed session, it considers to be
redundant;

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber is of the opinion that the use of a
pseudonym is intended to protect the witness both during and after testimony in respect of
all necessary references subsequent to that testimony;

CONSIDERING that, regarding measure 8, the Prosecutor supports the
need for a procedure to monitor the disclosure of all or part of the witnesses
testimony, both in and outside the courtroom for use by one of the parties and submits,
moreover, that such a measure would cause only minimal prejudice to the Defence because it
has long known the identity of the witnesses; that the Defence asserts that such a measure
is unjustified and would therefore needlessly lengthen the proceedings;

CONSIDERING that the Defence has been provided with the identity and
the prior statements of the witnesses concerned in a timely manner and, concomitantly, has
had ample time to prepare its cross-examination; that, in principle, the Trial Chamber is
not in a position to assess whether and to what extent it might prove necessary for the
Defence to use all or part of the testimony given at trial; that, under these conditions,
while affording protection to the witnesses, it is important to allow the Defence to
choose its own strategy; that for such a purpose, the rights of the accused will be
sufficiently respected so long as the possibility remains for him to explain to the Trial
Chamber ex parte, if necessary, the grounds which might make it necessary to use
specifically certain passages of statements of the witnesses in question.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,

RULING inter partes and unanimously,

NOTES the agreement between the parties on protective measures 2, 4,
5, 6, 7 and 9 and GRANTS them,

ORDERS that the witnesses concerned shall testify in closed session
and using a pseudonym,

STATES that it is the responsibility of the Defence to refer to the
Trial Chamber any difficulty which might arise further to the implementation of measure 8.